What do you think?
Rate this book
Robin Hood: A Complete Study of the English Outlaw
What emerges very clearly is the extraordinary power and diversity of the material. Again and again the reader is encouraged to look at well-known works in a fresh and invigorating way or to explore unknown but fascinating areas. Knight is open-minded and generous. I find it all very persuasive. - Professor Douglas Gray, University of Oxford
By no means indifferent to the romantic lore of the myth of the outlaw, Stephen Knight here provides an analysis of Robin Hood that is at once sympathetic and critical, warmly humane and politically astute - and remarkably thorough. This excellent book will fascinate and instruct all who have responded to the enduring fantasy of noble lawlessness. - Professor Robert Lee Patterson, Yale University
Everybody has heard of Robin Hood, but very few know about the wealth of materials which record and develop the tradition that sustains the myth. in this book Stephen Knight details and analyses the entire phenomenon of the outlaw, his resistance to authority, and how successive ages have interpreted him.
Knight shows how in the late Middle Ages Robin Hood was seen simply as an opponent of centralized law, while the Elizabethans gentrified him to support the aristocracy and to oppose a corrupt Catholic church, and then at the Restoration he came to personify treason against an anointed king. To Walter Scott, Robin was a Saxon freedom fighter, but for Keats he was a vision of an imaginatively freer time. Tennyson and the Georgian poets found in their hero a symbolic escape from oppressive modernity, while Hollywood, at its most vigorous - and elitist - made Robin Hood a doubtful figure of democracy. More recently he has focused forms as disparate as Disney comedy and the historical novel, as well as television versions ranging from the radical-mystical to feminist farce.
Most accounts of Robin Hood merely retell stories or speculate upon the original bandit's identity. But Knight's new study, based on wide and sophisticated literary and sociocultural research, is the first complete analytic account of this major mythic figure, the English outlaw hero who has symbolized many forms of resistance to authority around the world for over five hundred years.
By no means indifferent to the romantic lore of the myth of the outlaw, Stephen Knight here provides an analysis of Robin Hood that is at once sympathetic and critical, warmly humane and politically astute - and remarkably thorough. This excellent book will fascinate and instruct all who have responded to the enduring fantasy of noble lawlessness. - Professor Robert Lee Patterson, Yale University
Everybody has heard of Robin Hood, but very few know about the wealth of materials which record and develop the tradition that sustains the myth. in this book Stephen Knight details and analyses the entire phenomenon of the outlaw, his resistance to authority, and how successive ages have interpreted him.
Knight shows how in the late Middle Ages Robin Hood was seen simply as an opponent of centralized law, while the Elizabethans gentrified him to support the aristocracy and to oppose a corrupt Catholic church, and then at the Restoration he came to personify treason against an anointed king. To Walter Scott, Robin was a Saxon freedom fighter, but for Keats he was a vision of an imaginatively freer time. Tennyson and the Georgian poets found in their hero a symbolic escape from oppressive modernity, while Hollywood, at its most vigorous - and elitist - made Robin Hood a doubtful figure of democracy. More recently he has focused forms as disparate as Disney comedy and the historical novel, as well as television versions ranging from the radical-mystical to feminist farce.
Most accounts of Robin Hood merely retell stories or speculate upon the original bandit's identity. But Knight's new study, based on wide and sophisticated literary and sociocultural research, is the first complete analytic account of this major mythic figure, the English outlaw hero who has symbolized many forms of resistance to authority around the world for over five hundred years.
308 pages, Paperback
First published October 23, 1994
2 people are currently reading
67 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 26, 2019
There is a lot that is good about this book. I learned a lot about both ancient and more modern versions of the legend - Thomas Love Peacock's "Maid Marian" is a book I'd never have heard of were it not for this book. Also, his emphasis that there is not a canonical Robin Hood story, like Le Morte d'Arthur is to King Arthur. That actually made me like more modern versions a lot better. Anyone is free to add to the story in any way they want (an especially good example of this is "Will in Scarlet" by Matthew Cody, a book I highly recommend).
However, you know when I start the review off that way, there has to be a "however." The author, while acknowledging that there are a lot of different ways of seeing Robin Hood, apparently has his ONE WAY of seeing him, as an anti-authority figure. I'm not saying that Robin Hood can't be viewed as such, it's just that every other consideration in the book is measured by how Robin's traits relate to this one identity. Any deviation is regarded as "gentrification" - and, lest this seem an ambiguous term, he even adds enfeebling to it on one occasion.
Much more informative was his discussion about Robin's role. In some he is a leader, in others a follower, and in some others a buffoon. I found that sort of interpretation much more interesting than how anti-authoritarian Robin would be, especially from a literary point of view.
And now the biggest critique. He says literally almost nothing about robbing from the rich and giving to the poor! Okay, so he makes the case that that element is not in the original ballads (I myslef would say not stressed, that is, but more about that in a minute). Assuming that is true, you would think at some point, as the author is moving forward in time through Robin interpretations, that it would come up SOMEWHERE. But the only place he mentions it is earlier in the book, and that to say it wasn't part of it at that time. Ya know, when you get to the 20th century (if not WAAAAY sooner, thanks to Parker's 17th century Robin Hood), even if you don't like it since it's not anti-authoritarian, the author could at least talk about it.
For me, I noticed the omission mainly because it does show the author's bias. The big Robin Hood story that historians like to point out, because of its antiquity, is the Gest of Robin Hood. True, there's no robbing from the rich scenes and distributing to the unfortunate in the poem. However, the very last line of the poem is "For he was a good outlaw, and did the poor much good." For me, I'll acknowledge that the original didn't contain our 21st-century ideas of wealth distribution. On the other hand, in the main story it ends with his concern for the poor. I'm no Robin Hood scholar, but I'd bet that it didn't make it into the main story because archery and robbing corrupt abbots is a lot more fun to hear than charitable distribution. Just from a story-telling point of view.
But that rant aside, a well written book, with a lot of scholarship behind it. I may have strong views about it, but it was definitely a good intro to a subject I knew little of.
However, you know when I start the review off that way, there has to be a "however." The author, while acknowledging that there are a lot of different ways of seeing Robin Hood, apparently has his ONE WAY of seeing him, as an anti-authority figure. I'm not saying that Robin Hood can't be viewed as such, it's just that every other consideration in the book is measured by how Robin's traits relate to this one identity. Any deviation is regarded as "gentrification" - and, lest this seem an ambiguous term, he even adds enfeebling to it on one occasion.
Much more informative was his discussion about Robin's role. In some he is a leader, in others a follower, and in some others a buffoon. I found that sort of interpretation much more interesting than how anti-authoritarian Robin would be, especially from a literary point of view.
And now the biggest critique. He says literally almost nothing about robbing from the rich and giving to the poor! Okay, so he makes the case that that element is not in the original ballads (I myslef would say not stressed, that is, but more about that in a minute). Assuming that is true, you would think at some point, as the author is moving forward in time through Robin interpretations, that it would come up SOMEWHERE. But the only place he mentions it is earlier in the book, and that to say it wasn't part of it at that time. Ya know, when you get to the 20th century (if not WAAAAY sooner, thanks to Parker's 17th century Robin Hood), even if you don't like it since it's not anti-authoritarian, the author could at least talk about it.
For me, I noticed the omission mainly because it does show the author's bias. The big Robin Hood story that historians like to point out, because of its antiquity, is the Gest of Robin Hood. True, there's no robbing from the rich scenes and distributing to the unfortunate in the poem. However, the very last line of the poem is "For he was a good outlaw, and did the poor much good." For me, I'll acknowledge that the original didn't contain our 21st-century ideas of wealth distribution. On the other hand, in the main story it ends with his concern for the poor. I'm no Robin Hood scholar, but I'd bet that it didn't make it into the main story because archery and robbing corrupt abbots is a lot more fun to hear than charitable distribution. Just from a story-telling point of view.
But that rant aside, a well written book, with a lot of scholarship behind it. I may have strong views about it, but it was definitely a good intro to a subject I knew little of.
December 22, 2023
"Many men speak of Robin Hood who never bent his bow."
Like the man himself, the literary tradition can be said to be both everywhere and nowhere; we know the name but how many amongst us can point to the authoritative source?
This resistance to novelisation may, in part, be due to the character's innate merriment: absent are the doubts of Hamlet or the adultery of Lancelot, and absent too is the grim vengeance of an outcast or bandit, what we essentially have is an Attitude, not a character.
This book is a study of the entire span of the tradition, from the obscure references and place names dating back to the early 13th century, to the ballads, poems and plays of the 15th-16th centuries, to the later gentrification of Robin, his adopted role as a friend of the poor, his conservative role as protector of heritage (the greenwood), his place in children's literature and finally his role in film and pantomime. For Robin is very much mythologically alive, both popular and flexible to interpretation in new media, let us not forget how performance has always shared a close relationship with our understanding of myth.
(This book also comes with a great appendix which lists all the known source material for Robin up to 1600.)
Like the man himself, the literary tradition can be said to be both everywhere and nowhere; we know the name but how many amongst us can point to the authoritative source?
This resistance to novelisation may, in part, be due to the character's innate merriment: absent are the doubts of Hamlet or the adultery of Lancelot, and absent too is the grim vengeance of an outcast or bandit, what we essentially have is an Attitude, not a character.
This book is a study of the entire span of the tradition, from the obscure references and place names dating back to the early 13th century, to the ballads, poems and plays of the 15th-16th centuries, to the later gentrification of Robin, his adopted role as a friend of the poor, his conservative role as protector of heritage (the greenwood), his place in children's literature and finally his role in film and pantomime. For Robin is very much mythologically alive, both popular and flexible to interpretation in new media, let us not forget how performance has always shared a close relationship with our understanding of myth.
(This book also comes with a great appendix which lists all the known source material for Robin up to 1600.)
August 21, 2009
Really comprehensive - Knight explores all aspects of the legend from the earliest ballads to the latest (at the time the book was written) films, theories and themes. He makes obvious that he doesn't believe Robin Hood was a real person, but unlike the other Robin Hood book I'm reading at the moment, he doesn't just leave out the aspects that challenge his stance - instead he discusses them at length.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews